DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) maybe used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
2. Claims 9, 17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 8 and 9 of U. S. Patent No. 12,231,222 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims 9, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,222. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present application is obvious in view of the claims 8 and 9 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,231,222. Specifically, the claims of U.S. Patent (12,231,222) are the same elements, same function, and same result as claims of present application. Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
More specifically, the claims 9, 17 and 19-20 of the present application is the same elements, same function, and same result as claims 8 and 9 of the U.S. Patent (12,231,222), specially, the independent claims 9 and 17 of the present application is the same invention as the independent claim 8 of the U.S. Patent (12,231,222).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows, and the difference of the limitations are wordings differently.
For example;
Instant Application
U.S Patent 12,231,222
9. Circuitry configured to: receive system information facilitating communication with a non-terrestrial communication node and transmitted from a terrestrial communication node; and configure a receiver to have less than or equal a threshold power of performance degradation when receiving a signal on a channel having a bandwidth and a center frequency, and an interfering signal having a power level is present at a frequency that is the bandwidth less than the center frequency, and cause the receiver to receive data from the non-terrestrial communication node.
17. User equipment comprising: one or more antennas; a receiver coupled to the one or more antennas; and processing circuitry communicatively coupled to the receiver, the processing circuitry configured to cause the receiver to receive system information facilitating communication with a non-terrestrial communication node from a terrestrial communication node; and configure the receiver to have less than or equal a threshold power of performance degradation when receiving a signal on a channel having a bandwidth and a center frequency, and an interfering signal having a power level is present at a frequency that is the bandwidth greater than the center frequency, and cause the receiver to receive data from the non-terrestrial communication node.
8. A method, comprising: detecting, via a receiver of user equipment, a terrestrial communication node; synchronizing, via at least one processor of the user equipment, to the terrestrial communication node; causing, via the at least one processor, the receiver to receive system information facilitating communication with a non-terrestrial communication node from the terrestrial communication node; configuring, via the at least one processor, the receiver to have less than or equal a threshold power of performance degradation when receiving a signal on a channel having a bandwidth and a center frequency, and an interfering signal having a power level is present at a first frequency that is a bandwidth greater than the center frequency, and receiving, using the receiver as configured, data from the non-terrestrial communication node.
The additional limitation is not affecting the scope of the present invention. In addition, even though the claim of present application omitted or rearrangement of the claim structure (simply rearranged and restructured the claim elements using same or similar words), the limitation of independent claim 8 of the U.S. Patent (12,231,222) is encompassed the claimed invention of the independent claim 9 and 17 of the present application.
Therefore, the function and results of the claim invention of present application are same as the claim invention of the U.S. Patent (12,231,222).
Furthermore, the dependent claim 19 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 9 of the U.S. Patent (12,231,222).
The dependent claim 20 of the present application are same function and same result as claim 9 of the U.S. Patent (12,231,222).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-4, 9-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HALEY et al. (US 2017/0347340).
Regarding claim 1, HALEY teaches that receiving, via processing circuitry, system information facilitating communication with a non-terrestrial communication node from a terrestrial communication node (Fig. 1 and pages 5, paragraphs 96 – 98, where teaches a satellite based access node and ground based terminals, some of which may be user terminals, and some of which may be gateway terminals, the gateway/access terminal also includes a local group of user terminals that are coordinated by a multi-mode gateway/access terminal functioning as an access node, and the satellite, the gateway/access terminal may function as a gateway node, the access node communicates over a downlink comprising a single carrier broadcast from the access node to all terminals for timing status, acknowledgements and data transfer, and the user terminals communicate over uplinks comprising flexible time and frequency slotted uplinks access for requests and traffic, pre-compensated for channel offsets), and configuring, via the processing circuitry, a receiver to have less than or equal a threshold power of performance degradation when receiving a signal on a channel having a bandwidth and a center frequency (pages 13, paragraphs 223 – 225 and Fig. 1, 3, 9, where teaches the access node MAC layer uses per-subcarrier noise power estimates provided by the PHY receiver to avoid interference by omitting effected subcarriers from the allocation, and the MAC layer may compare the noise estimates to a predetermined threshold. If a subcarrier has noise power exceeding the threshold the MAC layer may remove that subcarrier index from the list of subcarrier indices available for uplink allocation, and the MAC layer continues to track the per-subcarrier noise power estimates, and once the subcarrier noise power estimate drops below the threshold, the subcarrier index may be returned to the set available for uplink allocation, the threshold may be chosen experimentally, such that it allows for some variation, e.g. due to changes in thermal noise conditions, while targeting the detection of increased power due to interference, and the threshold value may be updated from time to time), a first interfering signal having a power level is present at a first frequency that is the bandwidth less than the center frequency (page 1, paragraphs 15 – pages 2, paragraphs 18, Fig. 5, 10 and pages 9, paragraphs 131 – 136, where teaches the access node is travelling towards a first terminal T1, thus inducing a positive Doppler shift on the uplink signal and moving it to a higher frequency at the receiver, the access node is travelling away from a second terminal T2, thus inducing a negative Doppler shift on the uplink signal and moving it to a lower frequency at the receiver, and the access node is directly above terminal T3 and there is negligible Doppler shift, and Doppler induced shifts may be significant in relation to available uplink bandwidth and spacing between subcarriers, for example, for the case of a 400 MHz carrier frequency, a terminal directly ahead of a LEO satellite based access node is shifted upwards in frequency by approximately 10 kHz, and these effects can reduce performance by introducing inter-carrier interference. The performance degradation increases with induced frequency shift), and a second interfering signal having the power level is present at a second frequency that is the bandwidth greater than the center frequency (page 1, paragraphs 15 – pages 2, paragraphs 18, Fig. 5, 10 and pages 9, paragraphs 131 – 136, where teaches the access node is travelling towards a first terminal T1, thus inducing a positive Doppler shift on the uplink signal and moving it to a higher frequency at the receiver, the access node is travelling away from a second terminal T2, thus inducing a negative Doppler shift on the uplink signal and moving it to a lower frequency at the receiver, and the access node is directly above terminal T3 and there is negligible Doppler shift, and Doppler induced shifts may be significant in relation to available uplink bandwidth and spacing between subcarriers, for example, for the case of a 400 MHz carrier frequency, a terminal directly ahead of a LEO satellite based access node is shifted upwards in frequency by approximately 10 kHz, and these effects can reduce performance by introducing inter-carrier interference. The performance degradation increases with induced frequency shift), and receiving, via the processing circuitry, data from the non-terrestrial communication node using the receiver (pages 15, paragraphs 249 – 252 and Fig. 1, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 2, HALEY teaches that the threshold power of performance degradation comprises one decibel milliwatt (pages 13, paragraphs 223 – 225, Fig. 1, 3, 9, and page 1, paragraphs 15 – pages 2, paragraphs 18).
Regarding claim 3, HALEY teaches that the power level comprises -40 decibel milliwatts or greater (pages 14, paragraphs 239, Fig. 1, 2, pages 17, paragraphs 279, and pages 27, paragraphs 402 – 403).
Regarding claim 4, HALEY teaches that the bandwidth comprises five megahertz (Fig. 1, 3, 9 and page 1, paragraphs 15 – pages 2, paragraphs 18).
Regarding claim 9, HALEY teaches all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 10, HALEY teaches all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 2. Furthermore, HALEY further teaches that the circuitry is configured to configure the receiver to have less than or equal the threshold power of performance degradation when receiving the signal on the channel having the bandwidth and the center frequency (pages 13, paragraphs 223 – 225, Fig. 1, 3, 9, and page 1, paragraphs 15 – pages 2, paragraphs 18), and an additional interfering signal having a power level is present at a frequency that is the bandwidth greater than the center frequency (page 1, paragraphs 15 – pages 2, paragraphs 18, Fig. 5, 10 and pages 9, paragraphs 131 – 136).
Regarding claim 17, HALEY teaches all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 2. Furthermore, HALEY further teaches that one or more antennas (Fig. 1, 2), a receiver coupled to the one or more antennas (Fig. 1, 2), and processing circuitry communicatively coupled to the receiver (Fig. 4 and pages 7, paragraphs 114 – 115), the processing circuitry configured to cause the receiver to receive system information facilitating communication with a non-terrestrial communication node from a terrestrial communication node (Fig, 1, 2, 4, pages 5, paragraphs 96 – 98, and pages 7, paragraphs 114 – 115).
Regarding claim 18, HALEY teaches all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 10. Furthermore, HALEY further teaches that the center frequency, and an additional interfering signal having a power level is present at a frequency that is the bandwidth less than the center frequency (page 1, paragraphs 15 – pages 2, paragraphs 18, Fig. 5, 10 and pages 9, paragraphs 131 – 136).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HALEY in view of Dutta (US 2022/0052754).
Regarding claims 5 and 19-20, HALEY does not specifically teaches the limitation “the data from the non-terrestrial communication node occurs on a frequency range of between 1518 to 1559 megahertz, between 1613.8 to 1626.5 megahertz, between 2170 to 2200 megahertz, or between 2483.5 to 2500 megahertz”. However, Dutta teaches the limitation “the data from the non-terrestrial communication node occurs on a frequency range of between 1518 to 1559 megahertz, between 1613.8 to 1626.5 megahertz, between 2170 to 2200 megahertz, or between 2483.5 to 2500 megahertz” (Fig. 5 and page 1, paragraphs 7, where teaches the main satellite and the plurality of ancillary satellites communicate with user equipment on a surface of the earth with uplink and downlink communication links having communication frequencies in the range of 0.1 to 40 GHz, and distances between the satellites exceed several tens of wavelengths of the communication wavelengths associated with the communication frequencies). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of the HALEY’s communication performance as taught by Dutta, providing the motivation to establish uplink and downlink satellite communication links for eliminating the need for controlling the physical integrity of the functionated communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 6-8 and 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitation “the receiver to have less than or equal an additional threshold power of performance degradation when receiving an additional signal on an additional channel having an additional bandwidth and an additional center frequency, a third interfering signal having an additional power level is present at a third frequency that is the additional bandwidth less than the additional center frequency, and a fourth interfering signal having the additional power level is present at a fourth frequency that is the additional bandwidth greater than the additional center frequency” as specified the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Busche et al. (US 2017/0214462) discloses Satellite Communication System.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
J.L
September 18, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights